Art and photography
Peter H.M. Brooks
Picasso exhibition at the new National Gallery. It was a real treat and
inspiration with over 120 paintings and drawings as well as some
sculpture. I was particularly struck by the humour that comes through
so many of his paintings - a lot were variations on the Kiss. The works
were from a wide spread of years, my only disappointment was that there
weren't many 'blue period' works. I would recommend visiting it to
anybody who has an opportunity.
Upstairs there was an exhibition of photographs by Helmut Newton. There
were quite a few nice looking women with no clothes on, and even a
couple of not-bad visual jokes. I was very struck by the contrast with
Picasso, though. It was abundantly clear why photography can never be
art, let alone fine art, no matter how skilled the photographer. If
there was any art at work, it might be theatrical in the careful
arrangement of the scenes presented to the camera.
Most interestingly there were a couple of pieces by Picasso that made
the point nicely. They were titled 'jokes' and were photographs that he
had turned into art by drawing over them.
Just for the record, there were also some nice pieces by Max Ernst and
some very tired and dated looking Andy Warhol.
--
Coming back to wrathy swearing,...
I am sorry to see it decay.
H.G. Wells 'Certain Matters' 1898
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Lance
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> I was very struck by the contrast with
> Picasso, though. It was abundantly clear why photography can never be
> art, let alone fine art, no matter how skilled the photographer. If
> there was any art at work, it might be theatrical in the careful
> arrangement of the scenes presented to the camera.
>
This seems very weak to me. Painters have long felt threatened by
photography. Most art prizes are not awarded for painting any more. Painting
has become increasingly marginal. Now photography is certainly itself under
threat from video and computer graphics, but I would think that its status
as an art is a great deal more healthy than that of painting.
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
mechanical rendering of a view, it can't be art. It would make a
nonsense of the whole idea of art - for one thing you could simply take
a photograph of a photograph and claim that that was art too!
Kellen
>That is an intereting view. However, since a photograph is simply a
>mechanical rendering of a view, it can't be art.
I suggest you have a LOT to learn about what photography,
and especially the genre of "fine art photography," is
all about. You obviously haven't a clue based on the
above statement.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kellen <kel...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3a154...@oracle.zianet.com...
be such a thing as 'fine art photography' - it is an oxymoron.
This is because art requires creativity, not necessarily originality,
but certainly the creation of something new. The very first photograph,
being the invention of a new medium could be argued for being art - as
could the first photocopy. However, all photocopies since then, like all
photographs are simply reproductions with no artistic merit.
Of course theatre is an art, so a theatrical arrangement of people can
be artistic, the photograph of this is simply a record, not art itself.
Kellen
>On the contrary! I am arguing that there is no such thing, and never can
>be such a thing as 'fine art photography' - it is an oxymoron.
Well, good luck in convincing the art world
at large that there is no such thing as
"fine art photography." In fact I am right
now getting ready to write a letter to a
museum that has long mounted an annual juried
art show for both 'regular' art and photography.
This year they have decided to discontinue the
juried show for 'artists' in favor of keeping
the juried show for 'photographers.' When asked
why I was told "due to lack of response in the
former and good response for the latter." Go figure.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <8v87nn$d0j$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>, pe...@new.co.za says...
>
> >On the contrary! I am arguing that there is no such thing, and never
can
> >be such a thing as 'fine art photography' - it is an oxymoron.
>
> Well, good luck in convincing the art world
> at large that there is no such thing as
> "fine art photography."
>
wouldn't be the first time and is highly unlikely to be the last.
>
> In fact I am right
> now getting ready to write a letter to a
> museum that has long mounted an annual juried
> art show for both 'regular' art and photography.
> This year they have decided to discontinue the
> juried show for 'artists' in favor of keeping
> the juried show for 'photographers.' When asked
> why I was told "due to lack of response in the
> former and good response for the latter." Go figure.
>
understand than art.
Lance
> be such a thing as 'fine art photography' - it is an oxymoron.
>
> but certainly the creation of something new. The very first photograph,
> being the invention of a new medium could be argued for being art - as
> could the first photocopy. However, all photocopies since then, like all
> photographs are simply reproductions with no artistic merit.
>
> Of course theatre is an art, so a theatrical arrangement of people can
> be artistic, the photograph of this is simply a record, not art itself.
>
means of a camera obscura, cannot be art. Even Rembrandt's self-portraits,
which are based on what he saw in a mirror, cannot be art. Indeed, any
realistic painting cannot be art by your reasoning.
By fortunately your reasoning is false. Art lies not in the nature of the
process by which an image is made, but in the way that image is composed to
provide a pleasing/aesthetic journey for the eye. And therein, in choosing
the composition of the picture, lies the art of the photographer. And also
the art of the realistic painter. (Photography also permits all sorts of
modifications to the image in the development and printing of the
photograph...).
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
Lance <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
news:8v9eig$1ui$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
can
> > be such a thing as 'fine art photography' - it is an oxymoron.
> >
> > This is because art requires creativity, not necessarily
originality,
> > but certainly the creation of something new. The very first
photograph,
> > being the invention of a new medium could be argued for being art -
as
> > could the first photocopy. However, all photocopies since then, like
all
> > photographs are simply reproductions with no artistic merit.
> >
> > Of course theatre is an art, so a theatrical arrangement of people
can
> > be artistic, the photograph of this is simply a record, not art
itself.
> >
> By the same reasoning Vermeer's paintings, many of which were painted
by
> means of a camera obscura, cannot be art. Even Rembrandt's
self-portraits,
> which are based on what he saw in a mirror, cannot be art. Indeed, any
> realistic painting cannot be art by your reasoning.
>
that the camera obscura could be seen as also simple copying, but that
is to assume that what was painted was exactly what was seen - which was
not the case.
>
> By fortunately your reasoning is false. Art lies not in the nature of
the
> process by which an image is made, but in the way that image is
composed to
> provide a pleasing/aesthetic journey for the eye.
>
>
> And therein, in choosing
> the composition of the picture, lies the art of the photographer.
>
of the scene - the photograph is simply a record of this, not art. The
composition of the scene is more like a dramatic or choreographic
effect.
>
>And also
> the art of the realistic painter. (Photography also permits all sorts
of
> modifications to the image in the development and printing of the
> photograph...).
>
possible for a photograph to be turned into art, I agree, I made this
point before too.
Erik A. Mattila
> Lance <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8v9eig$1ui$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
You're being a little short sighted, Brooks (there's an obcsure pun in
this).
A photographer, like Henri Cartier Bresson, uses his/her eyes like a
paintbrush, since you're concerned with creativity. If you get possessed
with photography, you'll end up seeing like you never saw before. The rest
is a matter ot technical virtuosity, just as a painter learns to handle the
material he/she works with.
Bresson is such a good artist that even Borges commended him - and Borges
was blind.
Erik Mattila
Peter H.M. Brooks
Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A195F84...@tomatoweb.com...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Lance <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:8v9eig$1ui$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> this).
>
>
> A photographer, like Henri Cartier Bresson, uses his/her eyes like a
> paintbrush, since you're concerned with creativity.
>
>
> If you get possessed
> with photography, you'll end up seeing like you never saw before
>
to see better - just as cooking helps you appreciate eating. However,
preparing a boil-in-the-bag from Waitrose is no more cooking than a
photograph is art - no matter how nice the boil-in-the-bag might be
argued to be.
>
> Bresson is such a good artist that even Borges commended him - and
Borges
> was blind.
>
Lance
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Not at all! Realism is quite different from mechanical copying. I agree
> that the camera obscura could be seen as also simple copying, but that
> is to assume that what was painted was exactly what was seen - which was
> not the case.
I think the two cases are comparable. And just as the realist painter
exercises choice so does the photographer - there are an infinity of
positions from which a scene can be photographed, after all. And an infinity
of ways in which the camera can be used.
> I said this before. That the art, if there is any, is in the composition
> of the scene - the photograph is simply a record of this, not art. The
> composition of the scene is more like a dramatic or choreographic
> effect.
Nonsense - first the photographer must "see" that some scene (whatever) is
beautiful, and then by artfully choosing his view, his film, his focus, etc
he must make us "see" as he sees. The mechanical nature of the photographic
process is a red herring.
> >
> With the later modifications - like computer image manipulation - it is
> possible for a photograph to be turned into art, I agree, I made this
> point before too.
>
Oh really?
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> > Not at all! Realism is quite different from mechanical copying. I
agree
> > that the camera obscura could be seen as also simple copying, but
that
> > is to assume that what was painted was exactly what was seen - which
was
> > not the case.
>
> exercises choice so does the photographer - there are an infinity of
> positions from which a scene can be photographed, after all. And an
infinity
> of ways in which the camera can be used.
>
the number of choices for where the shap should be taken that prevents
the snap being art, it is the fact that it is just a copy, there is no
artistic component. Which is why I agreed with you about the camera
obscura - if it was used slavishly [the camera can only be a slave to
the scene].
>
> > I said this before. That the art, if there is any, is in the
composition
> > of the scene - the photograph is simply a record of this, not art.
The
> > composition of the scene is more like a dramatic or choreographic
> > effect.
>
(whatever) is
> beautiful, and then by artfully choosing his view, his film, his
focus, etc
> he must make us "see" as he sees. The mechanical nature of the
photographic
> process is a red herring.
>
don't see what he sees, even with the see in inverted commas we don't.
The mechanical nature of a photograph (like the camera obscura) means
that the scene is always flat and always contains more detail than
necessary. These can be adjusted a little bit by filters and developing,
but there is no way that a photograph is anything more than a record of
one scene at one time, something even the meanest painting avoids.
> > >
> > With the later modifications - like computer image manipulation - it
is
> > possible for a photograph to be turned into art, I agree, I made
this
> > point before too.
> >
>
>
Yes, really.
Erik A. Mattila
> Lance <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8vbnr3$4k4$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
>
> > I think the two cases are comparable. And just as the realist painter
> > exercises choice so does the photographer - there are an infinity of
> > positions from which a scene can be photographed, after all. And an
> infinity
> > of ways in which the camera can be used.
> >
> I doubt that there truly are that number of choices. However, it isn't
> the number of choices for where the shap should be taken that prevents
> the snap being art, it is the fact that it is just a copy, there is no
> artistic component. Which is why I agreed with you about the camera
> obscura - if it was used slavishly [the camera can only be a slave to
> the scene].
I agree about the number of choices, i.e. 'infinity' (I think Lance was
doing a bit of rhetoric). But there are a large number of choices (and I
suppose you can always 'add on' another at any point, so maybe it is an
infinite series after all.) I saw an interesting article some years ago in
an art mag comparing camera lens with the human eye which showed a series
of 'cityscapes' taken with the same exposure and position but with several
lenses - it was dramatic. The scene was so different between the various
shots it appeared to be a completely different scene in many of the shots.
The point here is that even the photograph is an 'interpretation' or better
yet, a 'representation' of something, just as some painting, sculpture,
musice etc. is an 'interpretation.' The difference between someone who
uses a camera and a photographer who we might consider an artist is of
course a measure of the degree of skill, learning, dedication and so on
that the individual may invest into the practice of taking pictures.
> > Nonsense - first the photographer must "see" that some scene
> (whatever) is
> > beautiful, and then by artfully choosing his view, his film, his
> focus, etc
> > he must make us "see" as he sees. The mechanical nature of the
> photographic
> > process is a red herring.
> >
> I must point out, respectfully, that that is nonsense. We most certainly
> don't see what he sees, even with the see in inverted commas we don't.
> The mechanical nature of a photograph (like the camera obscura) means
> that the scene is always flat and always contains more detail than
> necessary. These can be adjusted a little bit by filters and developing,
> but there is no way that a photograph is anything more than a record of
> one scene at one time, something even the meanest painting avoids.
Both views above are nonsense, and of course mine here is too. Regardless,
'mechanical natures' abound - indeed the human eye is a mechanical device,
as is the process of an artist transporting pigment to the carrier or the
leveraging system of clarinet keys. "Mechanical Divisiveness" cannot be a
reasonable criterion for the 'isitart' debate.
At any rate, the appearance of the photograph in Art Museums and Art
Galleries is the proof that is in the pudding since obviously that is what
'Art' is, after all the debates have subsided. That quality of Articity
has always been a matter of consensus, and enough people today see 'some'
photography as an art form to make it so.
Now there's a very good argument that the photograph doesn't look at all
like the so-called reality that is assumed to have been represented. The
same argument would apply to Renaissance perspective. In fact, 18th
century French critics attacked single and two point perspective on this
basis - i.e. that human's experience the world in a binocular fashion,
rather that a monocular fashion, and human beings always experience the
visual field in movement, rather than statically.
This of course directly applies to photography. Add to this the depth of
field factor. Human vision has a very short depth of field, much shorter
that the average camera lens. However, humans have a remarkably fast focus
mechanism - so fast in fact that unless we experiement with outselves, we
never notice it.
It's obvious from this basis that the photograph is a distortion, and the
distortion from the 'natural' is controlable by the photographer - so it is
therefore an interpretive factor.
The really remarkable thing, in my view, is that we modern humans are so
saturated by the interpretation of the world through the camera lens that
we accept it as 'natural' and 'faithful' when in fact it is not. It's just
that we are so inundated by this vision that it has become acceptable -
even to the degree that some can claim with authority that the photograph
represents some sort of truth of vision.
Erik Mattila
Peter H.M. Brooks
like the human eye. It simply records, passively, what impinges on it.
Of course, literal copies can be interesting, but they are not art.
camera affords compared to a brush or finger.
>
> At any rate, the appearance of the photograph in Art Museums and Art
> Galleries is the proof that is in the pudding since obviously that is
what
> 'Art' is, after all the debates have subsided. That quality of
Articity
> has always been a matter of consensus, and enough people today see
'some'
> photography as an art form to make it so.
>
misjudged as art, that is just an indication of a lack of judgement.
>
> Now there's a very good argument that the photograph doesn't look at
all
> like the so-called reality that is assumed to have been represented.
The
> same argument would apply to Renaissance perspective. In fact, 18th
> century French critics attacked single and two point perspective on
this
> basis - i.e. that human's experience the world in a binocular fashion,
> rather that a monocular fashion, and human beings always experience
the
> visual field in movement, rather than statically.
>
>
> This of course directly applies to photography. Add to this the depth
of
> field factor. Human vision has a very short depth of field, much
shorter
> that the average camera lens. However, humans have a remarkably fast
focus
> mechanism - so fast in fact that unless we experiement with outselves,
we
> never notice it.
>
>
> It's obvious from this basis that the photograph is a distortion, and
the
> distortion from the 'natural' is controlable by the photographer - so
it is
> therefore an interpretive factor.
>
>
> The really remarkable thing, in my view, is that we modern humans are
so
> saturated by the interpretation of the world through the camera lens
that
> we accept it as 'natural' and 'faithful' when in fact it is not. It's
just
> that we are so inundated by this vision that it has become
acceptable -
> even to the degree that some can claim with authority that the
photograph
> represents some sort of truth of vision.
>
Lance
"Erik A. Mattila" <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote:
> I agree about the number of choices, i.e. 'infinity' (I think Lance was
> doing a bit of rhetoric). But there are a large number of choices (and I
> suppose you can always 'add on' another at any point, so maybe it is an
> infinite series after all.) I saw an interesting article some years ago
in
> an art mag comparing camera lens with the human eye which showed a series
> of 'cityscapes' taken with the same exposure and position but with several
> lenses - it was dramatic. The scene was so different between the various
> shots it appeared to be a completely different scene in many of the shots.
Mathematically it is possible to prove that there are an infinity of points
even in a short segment of a line. In photography you have a full blown
three-dimensional space in which to position yourself, so of course there
are an infinity of possible positions.
>
> The point here is that even the photograph is an 'interpretation' or
better
> yet, a 'representation' of something, just as some painting, sculpture,
> musice etc. is an 'interpretation.' The difference between someone who
> uses a camera and a photographer who we might consider an artist is of
> course a measure of the degree of skill, learning, dedication and so on
> that the individual may invest into the practice of taking pictures.
I agree.
>
> Both views above are nonsense, and of course mine here is too.
Regardless,
> 'mechanical natures' abound - indeed the human eye is a mechanical device,
> as is the process of an artist transporting pigment to the carrier or the
> leveraging system of clarinet keys. "Mechanical Divisiveness" cannot be a
> reasonable criterion for the 'isitart' debate.
Yes, I have seen studies of how deeply photography has influenced
conventional drawing and painting. The snapshot capturing motion and
fleeting smiles (impossible to hold for long in a formal pose) and the like
are all suddenly to be found in painting after the invention of the camera.
Even Duchamp's attempt to capture motion (in his "stair" painting) can be
related to the idea of multiple exposures and the over printing of images...
And incidentally Duchamp was not above letting "mechanical" or natural
accretion processes create works of art either.
>
> At any rate, the appearance of the photograph in Art Museums and Art
> Galleries is the proof that is in the pudding since obviously that is what
> 'Art' is, after all the debates have subsided. That quality of Articity
> has always been a matter of consensus, and enough people today see 'some'
> photography as an art form to make it so.
I agree. If you visited two countries, Gulliver's Travels style, and one had
(say) only pottery and galleries etc devoted to pottery, and the other had
only photography, and galleries etc devoted to photography, and both were
very concerned to educate their youth in the mysteries of their particular
art, you would be forced to report that country A prizes pottery as art, but
country B prizes photography as art (not country B has no art).
>
> Now there's a very good argument that the photograph doesn't look at all
> like the so-called reality that is assumed to have been represented. The
> same argument would apply to Renaissance perspective. In fact, 18th
> century French critics attacked single and two point perspective on this
> basis - i.e. that human's experience the world in a binocular fashion,
> rather that a monocular fashion, and human beings always experience the
> visual field in movement, rather than statically.
>
> This of course directly applies to photography. Add to this the depth of
> field factor. Human vision has a very short depth of field, much shorter
> that the average camera lens. However, humans have a remarkably fast
focus
> mechanism - so fast in fact that unless we experiement with outselves, we
> never notice it.
>
> It's obvious from this basis that the photograph is a distortion, and the
> distortion from the 'natural' is controlable by the photographer - so it
is
> therefore an interpretive factor.
>
> The really remarkable thing, in my view, is that we modern humans are so
> saturated by the interpretation of the world through the camera lens that
> we accept it as 'natural' and 'faithful' when in fact it is not. It's
just
> that we are so inundated by this vision that it has become acceptable -
> even to the degree that some can claim with authority that the photograph
> represents some sort of truth of vision.
>
Yes - see my remarks about the influence of photography on drawing and
painting.
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Yes - see my remarks about the influence of photography on drawing and
> painting.
>
drawing and painting despite none of them being art.
Lance
> drawing and painting despite none of them being art.
>
Well I dunno about windmills and water-colours but many men would think of
women as works of art.
Erik A. Mattila
> Lance <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
> news:8vgr1r$e99$3...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> >
> > Yes - see my remarks about the influence of photography on drawing and
> > painting.
> >
> Sensible and true, just as windmills, women and water-colours influenced
> drawing and painting despite none of them being art.
Watercolors are not art??? Holy cow, that debate was settled years ago -
and it was only about 'selling' paintings in the first place, when brokers
considered the watercolor a vulgar sub-species of oil painting. Turner
Rules, after all!!
Peter, you're projecting your very private view of art into the public
sphere. Nothing wrong with a private view, of course, as each of us has a
few. The problem is that it generates a rather pointles discussion, since
it will inevitably conflict with the private views of others. At some
point I think it's good to consider what is 'discussable' at all. "Art"
has its objective reality, i.e. a history, which includes market forces and
'appearances' as well as biographies of artists and all that. So on an
objective level when we speak of "Art" we are talking about what's out
there in reality - which necessarily includes that which any of us, as
individuals, don't appreciate for any of various reasons.
While you're argument that photography isn't art because of x,y and z may
reinforce your private view, it is silly in the public sphere, since any of
us can easily go to an art museum or gallery and see photographers works.
(and that's also because x,y and z are difficult to demonstrate as being a
valid criteria of painting, sculpture etc.)
Erik Mattila
MacCandace
<< That is an intereting view. However, since a photograph is simply a
mechanical rendering of a view, it can't be art. It would make a
nonsense of the whole idea of art - for one thing you could simply take
a photograph of a photograph and claim that that was art too! >>
Um, well, if you knew anything about the history of photography (which is an
art history sub-discipline, btw), you would know that that has already been
done...ad nauseum (by Sherrie Levine and many others) and that was po-mo and
that's art.
Candace
(take the litter out before replying by e-mail)
Peter H.M. Brooks
could argue for this being true.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Erik A. Mattila <emat...@tomatoweb.com> wrote in message
news:3A1C61AC...@tomatoweb.com...
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" wrote:
>
> > Lance <Lanc...@worldonline.co.za> wrote in message
> > news:8vgr1r$e99$3...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
> > >
> > > Yes - see my remarks about the influence of photography on drawing
and
> > > painting.
> > >
> > Sensible and true, just as windmills, women and water-colours
influenced
> > drawing and painting despite none of them being art.
>
> Watercolors are not art??? Holy cow, that debate was settled years
ago -
> and it was only about 'selling' paintings in the first place, when
brokers
> considered the watercolor a vulgar sub-species of oil painting.
Turner
> Rules, after all!!
>
context I used the term above. I know that they are also, by extension,
the paintings made from water-colours, but I certainly wasn't meaning
that they are not art!
>
> Peter, you're projecting your very private view of art into the public
> sphere. Nothing wrong with a private view, of course, as each of us
has a
> few. The problem is that it generates a rather pointles discussion,
since
> it will inevitably conflict with the private views of others. At some
> point I think it's good to consider what is 'discussable' at all.
"Art"
> has its objective reality, i.e. a history, which includes market
forces and
> 'appearances' as well as biographies of artists and all that. So on
an
> objective level when we speak of "Art" we are talking about what's out
> there in reality - which necessarily includes that which any of us, as
> individuals, don't appreciate for any of various reasons.
>
the point that I have been making hear about photography.'The Aesthetic
Understanding : Essays in the Philosophy of Art and Culture" is one
place where he outlines his view on the subject. I was impressed with
his overall approach to aesthetics.
>
> While you're argument that photography isn't art because of x,y and z
may
> reinforce your private view, it is silly in the public sphere, since
any of
> us can easily go to an art museum or gallery and see photographers
works.
> (and that's also because x,y and z are difficult to demonstrate as
being a
> valid criteria of painting, sculpture etc.)
>
rather a distorted copy, of the scene in front of it. The other
considerations are simply helping make it clear why this is cruical to
the question. Of course, as I have said before, the very first
photograph taken could be argued to be a piece of art, as the very first
'ready-made' can be argued to be a work of art - the rest of both are
simply copies of the same idea.
Peter H.M. Brooks
MacCandace <macca...@aol.comlitter> wrote in message
news:20001122215715...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
of the unfortunate post-modernism, my point though,
is that it was not art.
Daniel M
> nonsense of the whole idea of art - for one thing you could simply take
> a photograph of a photograph and claim that that was art too!
taking a photo of a photo is quite creative. I've heard much lesser things
called art!
Daniel M
> but certainly the creation of something new. The very first photograph,
> being the invention of a new medium could be argued for being art - as
> could the first photocopy
This is an interesting point. If someone, unbeknown to Da Vinci, had
painted, say, the Mona Lisa (except it wouldn't be called that probably) a
100 years before he did; then whe Da Vinci did the same a 100 years later it
wouldn't be art because someone had done it before? Or in countless other
similar/more plausible cases. Thus artistic value is no longer on this view
intrinsic to the piece, but is an extrinsic concept and depends on whether
something else has a better claim to originality of a similar sort. I find
this bizarre, and implausible.
I can see no good argument which could plausibly argue for photography not
being, in some sense of the work, art. Obviously if you're definition of art
involves painting, then it isn't. But you're definition allows theatre etc.,
but why isn't the second performance as much a copy of the first as my
taking the picture of an already photographed scene for a second time a
similar copy?
MacCandace
<< MacCandace <macca...@aol.comlitter> wrote in message
news:20001122215715...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> Peter HM Brooks wrote:
>
> << That is an intereting view. However, since a photograph is simply a
> mechanical rendering of a view, it can't be art. It would make a
> nonsense of the whole idea of art - for one thing you could simply
take
> a photograph of a photograph and claim that that was art too! >>
>
> Um, well, if you knew anything about the history of photography (which
is an
> art history sub-discipline, btw), you would know that that has already
been
> done...ad nauseum (by Sherrie Levine and many others) and that was
po-mo and
> that's art.
>
Yes, I know it has been done. I know that was one of the manifestations
of the unfortunate post-modernism, my point though,
is that it was not art. >>
Well, not to you, I guess, but that's your subjective view. Some people did
consider it art and it got a lot of play and still does in art history books,
museums, etc. You're going to have a hard time convincing a lot of people that
photography is not art. The art world, in general, agrees that it is. There's
more to photography than just snapping the shutter...that's a snapshot and
that's just a documentary of our lives. A fine art photo--with or without
digital manipulation and with or without the addition of other art mediums--is
more. It's not all that easy to get a photograph like one of Weston's peppers
and, additionally, it's also about intent and the whole art historical
continuum. You need the things before to evolve into the things after. Art is
constantly in flux and different mediums come to the fore and then fade away or
mutate into other mediums but we need what has happened in the past to get to
the present and continue onward.
Peter H.M. Brooks
macca...@aol.comlitter (MacCandace) wrote:
>
>
> Well, not to you, I guess, but that's your subjective view.
>
component.
>
>Some
people did
> consider it art and it got a lot of play and still does in art history
books,
> museums, etc. You're going to have a hard time convincing a lot of
people that
> photography is not art.
>
majority, which is, as we all know, frequently wrong. Certainly majority
opinion is no route to a correct answer to very much.
>
>
> You need the things before to evolve into the things after.
Art is
> constantly in flux and different mediums come to the fore and then
fade away or
> mutate into other mediums but we need what has happened in the past to
get to
> the present and continue onward.
>
sense that paint, stone or a theatre are media.
--
Coming back to wrathy swearing,...
I am sorry to see it decay.
H.G. Wells 'Certain Matters' 1898
Lance
"Daniel M" <nospa...@cam.ac.uk> wrote, replying to Peter Brooks,
> > This is because art requires creativity, not necessarily originality,
> > but certainly the creation of something new. The very first photograph,
> > being the invention of a new medium could be argued for being art - as
> > could the first photocopy
>
> This is an interesting point. If someone, unbeknown to Da Vinci, had
> painted, say, the Mona Lisa (except it wouldn't be called that probably) a
> 100 years before he did; then whe Da Vinci did the same a 100 years later
it
> wouldn't be art because someone had done it before? Or in countless other
> similar/more plausible cases. Thus artistic value is no longer on this
view
> intrinsic to the piece, but is an extrinsic concept and depends on whether
> something else has a better claim to originality of a similar sort. I find
> this bizarre, and implausible.
Many art students in the past, and some today, do sit in front of the old
masters and make copies. We don't regard these copies as serious rivals to
the originals, however. On the other hand, Rembrandt etched a single plate
and made quite a few copies from that single plate. Each print he made he
signed. We do regard each of these prints as original works of art. Perhaps
the print example is analogous to the many performances making up a long run
of a play at the theatre?
Originality does seem to be part and parcel of what we mean by 'art'. I
agree with Peter on that one. Copies generally don't get the regard that
originals do. Where I differ from Peter is that I think photographs can be
original, because I think they involve a genuine original composition. True
the 'composition' was somehow also 'out there' in the world to be seen (but
remember my point about the infinity of possible view points), but the
photographer both saw it and realised that it was worth snapping. In the
same way landscape painters and lovers of nature may find beauty in a scene
that passes by unseen by the rest of us. Chinese naturalistic studies of
individual twigs and leaves seem to be similar in this aspect seeing the
beauty in nature and in the material available to all of us.
An author who has made much of the claim that art requires originality is
Colin Martindale. He mostly studies literature rather than painting or
photography. Nevertheless he sees all the arts as following classic
trajectories driven by the need for originality. So in Henry viii 's time
Wyatt poetry was original and started a tradition that progressed through
the Elizabethan years and on to the metaphysical poets. But while poets like
Philip Sydney could be both poetic and men of affairs some of the
metaphysical poets could not - for they were driven by a more extreme demand
for originality that required a different kind of personality. At the
beginning of a tradition originality is easy. At the terminus, when most of
the obvious ideas in that tradition have long been exhausted, only
exceptional people can make contributions. Martindale develops these ideas
along the lines of an economics of originality, and takes into account the
dependence of the artists on an audience (if artists are dependent this
slows the rate of progress in the artistic tradition) as well as
psychological access to primary process thinking.
Lance
Kellen
says...
>Where I differ from Peter is that I think photographs can be
>original, because I think they involve a genuine original composition.
Peter's argument is specious at best and disingenuous
at worst. Regardless of what his viewpoint about a
particular photograph is, PHOTOGRAPHY is accepted today
as a fine art medium, just as printmaking, performance
art, installation art and the entire range of "art" is.
As for THE photograph, it is simply the RECORD of
the artist's intent, no different from all the other
artists end products - fine art print, performance,
installation etc.
I know photographers who have created entire bodies
of work wherein they compose the scene - Cindy Sherman
would be only one example - and the photograph is the
record of that composition. Just as a painting could
easily be a record of the same composition.
As I said, it is a specious and meaningless
argument at this point in art's history.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Daniel M <nospa...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8vk7k3$lqk$1...@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk...
> > It would make a
> > nonsense of the whole idea of art - for one thing you could simply
take
> > a photograph of a photograph and claim that that was art too!
>
things
> called art!
>
However, this isn't an argument that it is.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > This is because art requires creativity, not necessarily
originality,
> > but certainly the creation of something new. The very first
photograph,
> > being the invention of a new medium could be argued for being art -
as
> > could the first photocopy
>
> This is an interesting point. If someone, unbeknown to Da Vinci, had
> painted, say, the Mona Lisa (except it wouldn't be called that
probably) a
> 100 years before he did; then whe Da Vinci did the same a 100 years
later it
> wouldn't be art because someone had done it before? Or in countless
other
> similar/more plausible cases. Thus artistic value is no longer on this
view
> intrinsic to the piece, but is an extrinsic concept and depends on
whether
> something else has a better claim to originality of a similar sort. I
find
> this bizarre, and implausible.
>
buy a copy of the Mona Lisa for a pound or two. So it maybe bizarre, it
may be implausible, but, that is the way that it is.
>
> I can see no good argument which could plausibly argue for photography
not
> being, in some sense of the work, art. Obviously if you're definition
of art
> involves painting, then it isn't. But you're definition allows theatre
etc.,
> but why isn't the second performance as much a copy of the first as my
> taking the picture of an already photographed scene for a second time
a
> similar copy?
>
are only so many people who can fit in the theatre, so it is necessary
to show the same thing several times. The assumption is that everybody
sees it once.
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Originality does seem to be part and parcel of what we mean by 'art'.
I
> agree with Peter on that one. Copies generally don't get the regard
that
can be
> original, because I think they involve a genuine original composition.
>
unarranged scene, then it is simply the photographer inviting others to
enjoy the scene that he enjoyed.
>
> Chinese naturalistic studies of
> individual twigs and leaves seem to be similar in this aspect seeing
the
> beauty in nature and in the material available to all of us.
>
It is also delicate. As a quite separate point, I was amused by van
Gogh's 'japanese' paintings - he certainly didn't have the delicacy to
execute them properly and they make a charminly funny parody.
I was trying to make this point with the remark that Beethoven was an
innovator of form while Mozart was an innovator of substance.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Kellen <kel...@dontemailme.com> wrote in message
news:3a1e9...@oracle.zianet.com...
> >original, because I think they involve a genuine original
composition.
>
> at worst. Regardless of what his viewpoint about a
> particular photograph is, PHOTOGRAPHY is accepted today
> as a fine art medium, just as printmaking, performance
> art, installation art and the entire range of "art" is.
>
>
> As for THE photograph, it is simply the RECORD of
> the artist's intent
>
>
> I know photographers who have created entire bodies
> of work wherein they compose the scene - Cindy Sherman
> would be only one example - and the photograph is the
> record of that composition. Just as a painting could
> easily be a record of the same composition.
>
and an art work of a sort, but the photograph is simply, as you say, a
record of this, just like a photograph of a photograph.
>
> As I said, it is a specious and meaningless
> argument at this point in art's history.
>
I assure you that it is not a devious, but a perfectly straight forward
argument.
Oh yes, the capital letters detract from the force of your points rather
than enhancing them.
leonardo dasso
Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
news:8va9fs$is3$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net...
In my opinion the art of photography is -precisely- in the composition of
the scene. The photograph is a record of something, and that something is
selected, composed, framed by the photographer. The photographer chooses
what to include in the picture and what to leave out, and that is exactly, I
believe, where the art of photography lies. The effect can be dramatic,
choreographic, epic, elegiac, funny, melancholy, whatever. The artist
captures something in the film, a moment, an atmosphere, something, and that
is what the picture expresses. This is art, and I dont think there is any
way around it.
regards
leo
Peter H.M. Brooks
leonardo dasso <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
news:8vnanc$8sj$1...@lure.pipex.net...
>
> In my opinion the art of photography is -precisely- in the
composition of
> the scene. The photograph is a record of something, and that something
is
> selected, composed, framed by the photographer. The photographer
chooses
> what to include in the picture and what to leave out, and that is
exactly, I
> believe, where the art of photography lies. The effect can be
dramatic,
> choreographic, epic, elegiac, funny, melancholy, whatever. The artist
> captures something in the film, a moment, an atmosphere, something,
and that
> is what the picture expresses. This is art, and I dont think there is
any
> way around it.
> regards
>
scene may be.
leonardo dasso
>
> leonardo dasso <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
> news:8vnanc$8sj$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >
> > In my opinion the art of photography is -precisely- in the
> composition of
> > the scene. The photograph is a record of something, and that something
> is
> > selected, composed, framed by the photographer. The photographer
> chooses
> > what to include in the picture and what to leave out, and that is
> exactly, I
> > believe, where the art of photography lies. The effect can be
> dramatic,
> > choreographic, epic, elegiac, funny, melancholy, whatever. The artist
> > captures something in the film, a moment, an atmosphere, something,
> and that
> > is what the picture expresses. This is art, and I dont think there is
> any
> > way around it.
> > regards
> >
> I am pleased that you agree with me! The photography is not art, the
> scene may be.
>
it is the photographer who captures it, and decides what should be included
in the picture and what should not, and the angle from which it should be
captured. The same object, the same people, the same scene, the same face
may be captured in many different ways: some will be art -many will be just
a boring, uninspiring record of a collection of objects.
regards
leo
Daniel M
> > This is an interesting point. If someone, unbeknown to Da Vinci, had
> > painted, say, the Mona Lisa (except it wouldn't be called that probably)
a
> > 100 years before he did; then whe Da Vinci did the same a 100 years
later
> it
> > wouldn't be art because someone had done it before? Or in countless
other
> > similar/more plausible cases. Thus artistic value is no longer on this
> view
> > intrinsic to the piece, but is an extrinsic concept and depends on
whether
> > something else has a better claim to originality of a similar sort. I
find
> > this bizarre, and implausible.
>
> masters and make copies. We don't regard these copies as serious rivals to
> the originals, however.
So the example I gave wouldn't be a copy on your definition of copy then!
Daniel M
> sees it once.
what if they see it more than once?!!
Lance
"Daniel M" <nospa...@cam.ac.uk> wrote:
All I can think to say is that no man would ever have had worse luck than
poor da Vinci innocently painting away and all the while some one had pipped
him to the post. And he would never be able to convince anyone that his work
really was the original, or even original at all...
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> > I am pleased that you agree with me! The photography is not art, the
> > scene may be.
> >
>
>
> The 'scene' just happens to be there;
> it is the photographer who captures it, and decides what should be
included
> in the picture and what should not, and the angle from which it should
be
> captured. The same object, the same people, the same scene, the same
face
> may be captured in many different ways: some will be art -many will be
just
> a boring, uninspiring record of a collection of objects.
> regards
>
above.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> >The assumption is that everybody
> > sees it once.
>
>
sait to the umpire, I see three balls, which one should I hit. The
umpire said , no problem, A
--
Coming back to wrathy swearing,...
I am sorry to see it decay.
askes 'Which bat should I use?'
leonardo dasso
>
> leonardo dasso <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote in message
> news:8voqep$24u$1...@lure.pipex.net...
> >
> > > I am pleased that you agree with me! The photography is not art, the
> > > scene may be.
> > >
> > I dont agree with you at all -sorry.
> >
> No need to apologise! However, you did agree!
> >
> > The 'scene' just happens to be there;
> > it is the photographer who captures it, and decides what should be
> included
> > in the picture and what should not, and the angle from which it should
> be
> > captured. The same object, the same people, the same scene, the same
> face
> > may be captured in many different ways: some will be art -many will be
> just
> > a boring, uninspiring record of a collection of objects.
> > regards
> >
> Exactly, you still agree. The photograph is simply the record of the
> above.
>
>
Peter: YOU are the weakest link!
Good-bye!
leo
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > > The 'scene' just happens to be there;
> > > it is the photographer who captures it, and decides what should be
> > included
> > > in the picture and what should not, and the angle from which it
should
> > be
> > > captured. The same object, the same people, the same scene, the
same
> > face
> > > may be captured in many different ways: some will be art -many
will be
> > just
> > > a boring, uninspiring record of a collection of objects.
> > > regards
> > >
> > Exactly, you still agree. The photograph is simply the record of the
> > above.
> >
> >
>
>
is good to see you still agree.
>
> Good-bye!
>
Good bye leo.
leonardo dasso
> > > > The 'scene' just happens to be there;
> > > > it is the photographer who captures it, and decides what should be
> > > included
> > > > in the picture and what should not, and the angle from which it
> should
> > > be
> > > > captured. The same object, the same people, the same scene, the
> same
> > > face
> > > > may be captured in many different ways: some will be art -many
> will be
> > > just
> > > > a boring, uninspiring record of a collection of objects.
> > > > regards
> > > >
> > > Exactly, you still agree. The photograph is simply the record of the
> > > above.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> Interesting, I didn't realise that there was a chain involved. Still, it
> is good to see you still agree.
> >
> > Good-bye!
> >
> Good bye leo.
>
I see now you're not posting from the UK. That's a catchphrase from a
popular quiz TV show in Britain. The presenter tells it to the contestants
that lose in each round.
Anyway, you don't think that there is art involved in recording a scene in a
particular way, whereas I do. We can agree to disagree.
regards
leo
Ruslan Zenin
> Being in Berlin at the moment, I took the opportunity to visit the
> Picasso exhibition at the new National Gallery. It was a real treat
and
> inspiration with over 120 paintings and drawings as well as some
> sculpture. I was particularly struck by the humour that comes through
> so many of his paintings - a lot were variations on the Kiss. The
works
> were from a wide spread of years, my only disappointment was that
there
> weren't many 'blue period' works. I would recommend visiting it to
> anybody who has an opportunity.
>
> Upstairs there was an exhibition of photographs by Helmut Newton.
There
> were quite a few nice looking women with no clothes on, and even a
> couple of not-bad visual jokes. I was very struck by the contrast with
> Picasso, though. It was abundantly clear why photography can never be
> art, let alone fine art, no matter how skilled the photographer. If
> there was any art at work, it might be theatrical in the careful
> arrangement of the scenes presented to the camera.
>
> Most interestingly there were a couple of pieces by Picasso that made
> the point nicely. They were titled 'jokes' and were photographs that
he
> had turned into art by drawing over them.
>
> Just for the record, there were also some nice pieces by Max Ernst and
> some very tired and dated looking Andy Warhol.
>
> --
> Coming back to wrathy swearing,...
> I am sorry to see it decay.
> H.G. Wells 'Certain Matters' 1898
>
Peter H.M. Brooks
"leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>
>
> I see now you're not posting from the UK. That's a catchphrase from a
> popular quiz TV show in Britain. The presenter tells it to the
contestants
> that lose in each round.
>
watch plebvision, so I wouldn't know this even if I was living in the
UK.
>
> Anyway, you don't think that there is art involved in recording a
scene in a
> particular way, whereas I do. We can agree to disagree.
> regards
>
definer of what is not art, by a German photographer is very strong
evidence in my favour.
--
Coming back to wrathy swearing,...
I am sorry to see it decay.
H.G. Wells 'Certain Matters' 1898
leonardo dasso
> In article <8vrim5$jbr$1...@lure.pipex.net>,
> "leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I see now you're not posting from the UK. That's a catchphrase from a
> > popular quiz TV show in Britain. The presenter tells it to the
> contestants
> > that lose in each round.
> >
> I actually am posting from the UK today, from London. However, I don't
> watch plebvision, so I wouldn't know this even if I was living in the
> UK.
> >
> > Anyway, you don't think that there is art involved in recording a
> scene in a
> > particular way, whereas I do. We can agree to disagree.
> > regards
> >
> Certainly! However, the winning of the 'Turner Prize', well known as a
> definer of what is not art, by a German photographer is very strong
> evidence in my favour.
>
Following your line or argument, if we judged from the contraptions that
have won the Turner Prize over the years basically nothing could be labelled
as art any longer.
Actually, I have to say I was very pleased to see that for the first time
in years, something that can truly be labelled as art won the Turner this
time.
regards
leo
Peter H.M. Brooks
"leonardo dasso" <lda...@ukgateway.net> wrote:
>
> Peter H.M. Brooks <pe...@new.co.za> wrote in message
>
> Actually, I have to say I was very pleased to see that for the first
time
> in years, something that can truly be labelled as art won the Turner
this
> time.
>
adjusted to ape paintings of the past before being photographed.
--
Coming back to wrathy swearing,...
I am sorry to see it decay.
H.G. Wells 'Certain Matters' 1898
leonardo dasso
Very thin it is indeed. But it was your argument, not mine.
leo
leonardo dasso
Peter H.M. Brooks
it rest.
Lance
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
> Actually, it was your misunderstanding of my point, but, no matter, let
> it rest.
>
Dear Peter,
Are you well?
Lance
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Are you well?
>
increased my tolerance for those less fortunate than myself.
RBrac53660
photographers
Peter H.M. Brooks
RBrac53660 <rbrac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001204165933...@ng-df1.aol.com...
> Just as all those other media [sic] have techniques to achieve there
[sic] results so do
> photographers
>
The day a medium becomes an artist I will agree with you.
doug lauber
> MacCandace <macca...@aol.comlitter> wrote in message
> news:20001122215715...@ng-fv1.aol.com...
> > Peter HM Brooks wrote:
> >
> > << That is an intereting view. However, since a photograph is simply a
> > mechanical rendering of a view, it can't be art. It would make a
> > nonsense of the whole idea of art - for one thing you could simply
> take
> > a photograph of a photograph and claim that that was art too! >>
> >
> > Um, well, if you knew anything about the history of photography (which
> is an
> > art history sub-discipline, btw), you would know that that has already
> been
> > done...ad nauseum (by Sherrie Levine and many others) and that was
> po-mo and
> > that's art.
> >
> Yes, I know it has been done. I know that was one of the manifestations
> of the unfortunate post-modernism, my point though,
> is that it was not art.
I agree with Candace, even though she's emailing through aol. ;-)
The idea that photography is NOT 'art', strikes me as being a
troll, but if it's actually a sincere stand, I'll throw my 2 cents in.
The choices made during the mechanical capturing of the
image, and the subsequent printing, all involve 'artistic'
decision-making. I'm talking about elements of composition,
which include all kinds of aesthetic considerations, such as
color combos, placement of lines/linear design, social
statements, etc. The simple act of 'framing' one's subject
requires aesthetic thinking. The way the art community
judges a photographic piece uses many of the same
criteria, as judging other media. Ironically, I'm involved
with combining photo imagery, manipulated and tweaked
in Photoshop, with a traditional medium: -canvas/paint.
The addition of paint, almost automatically raises the
level of respectability and general acceptance of the
photo as being a more 'legitimate' art object. For some
reason, the multi-media creation, provides me with more
of a challenge, uniting two media. The combination of
photo and painting has less of an historical background,
than photography alone, which allows me a greater
degree of conceptual freedom. Multimedia P.M. is where
it's at... -doug
Peter H.M. Brooks
doug lauber <dugs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3A2EC053...@earthlink.net...
> > The idea that photography is NOT 'art', strikes me as being
a
> troll, but if it's actually a sincere stand, I'll throw my 2
cents in.
>
>
> The choices made during the mechanical capturing of the
> image, and the subsequent printing, all involve 'artistic'
> decision-making. I'm talking about elements of composition,
> which include all kinds of aesthetic considerations, such as
> color combos, placement of lines/linear design, social
> statements, etc. The simple act of 'framing' one's subject
> requires aesthetic thinking. The way the art community
> judges a photographic piece uses many of the same
> criteria, as judging other media. Ironically, I'm involved
> with combining photo imagery, manipulated and tweaked
> in Photoshop, with a traditional medium: -canvas/paint.
> The addition of paint, almost automatically raises the
> level of respectability and general acceptance of the
> photo as being a more 'legitimate' art object. For some
> reason, the multi-media creation, provides me with more
> of a challenge, uniting two media. The combination of
> photo and painting has less of an historical background,
> than photography alone, which allows me a greater
> degree of conceptual freedom. Multimedia P.M. is where
> it's at
>
you manipulate the image in the way you describe, you are making art
from it, but that is quite a different matter.
--
Lovers, said she, are the weakest people
in the world; and people of punctilio the
most un-punctilious. Richardson 'Grandison'
doug lauber
> In other words, you agree that pure photography isn't art. Clearly, once
> you manipulate the image in the way you describe, you are making art
> from it, but that is quite a different matter.
>
> --
No, I didn't say that. And there is no such thing as
'pure' photography. If you remove the artist/photographer
from the photographic process, then sure it's
mechanical non-art, but photos are taken by humans,
who run the gamut of being either good artists or
bad artists and the gray areas in between. There are
also painters who suck, and you could also say, 'this painter
is just slopping oil on a canvas, in a mechanical way.
All media involve elements of a 'mechanical' process.
-doug
doug lauber
By the way, I combine the two mediums, for aesthetic reasons,
and I think it's sad, and goofy that there are those small
eccentric traditionalists, who feel that photography is not
art. It's like saying anything involving mechanical processes
doesn't qualify as art. ie filmmaking, sculpture, on and on...
Now, if you want to make the point that 'pointing and shooting'
without implementing aesthetic considerations is non-art, I
can see that, but we have to assume that we're talking about
photography that DOES involve aesthetic thought during the
process. Also, when we discuss painters, I'd assume we were NOT
talking about house-painters. -doug
Peter H.M. Brooks
> > By the way, I combine the two mediums, for aesthetic
reasons,
> and I think it's sad, and goofy that there are those small
> eccentric traditionalists, who feel that photography is not
> art. It's like saying anything involving mechanical processes
> doesn't qualify as art. ie filmmaking, sculpture, on and on...
> Now, if you want to make the point that 'pointing and
shooting'
> without implementing aesthetic considerations is non-art, I
> can see that, but we have to assume that we're talking about
> photography that DOES involve aesthetic thought during the
> process. Also, when we discuss painters, I'd assume we were
NOT
> talking about house-painters. -doug
>
slop the paint on, then they are artists and it is art. This is yet
another contradiction, or unhappy conclusion, that is forced on you if
you try to claim that photography is art.
doug lauber
> doug lauber <dugs...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3A312534...@earthlink.net...
> > > By the way, I combine the two mediums, for aesthetic
> reasons,
> > and I think it's sad, and goofy that there are those small
> > eccentric traditionalists, who feel that photography is not
> > art. It's like saying anything involving mechanical processes
> > doesn't qualify as art. ie filmmaking, sculpture, on and on...
> > Now, if you want to make the point that 'pointing and
> shooting'
> > without implementing aesthetic considerations is non-art, I
> > can see that, but we have to assume that we're talking about
> > photography that DOES involve aesthetic thought during the
> > process. Also, when we discuss painters, I'd assume we were
> NOT
> > talking about house-painters. -doug
> >
> From your argument, if house-painters use some aesthetic thought as they
> slop the paint on, then they are artists and it is art.
> This is yet
> another contradiction, or unhappy conclusion, that is forced on you if
> you try to claim that photography is art.
Photography is just another medium, among many
in the art realm. That's a general consensus, and the
majority rules.
Now, 'woodworking' -that's just a 'craft', certainly
not 'art'. ;-) -doug
Peter H.M. Brooks
doug lauber <dugs...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Photography is just another medium, among many
> in the art realm. That's a general consensus, and the
> majority rules.
>
in matters of aesthetics.
>
> Now, 'woodworking' -that's just a 'craft', certainly
> not 'art'. ;-) -doug
An interesting question, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
--
Coming back to wrathy swearing,...
I am sorry to see it decay.
H.G. Wells 'Certain Matters' 1898
Michał Żmuda
RBrac53660
There are aesthetic choices to be made when useing the camera such as film,
light and content. Just as the house painter slops on the paint so does the
regular snap shot type of person. Just as the artist painter makes choices
about color light etc so does the artist photographer. And believe it or not a
photographer does need to have drawing skills.
PEACOCKJP
dung -- well certainly we can consider the imprinted image as art -
Marilyn Welch
What's amazing here is that the question is still being asked
especially after Mapplethorpe.
Most of all the photographer has to have an "eye." He can see a
composition which the average person would overlook.
What do I mean "average person" am I saying that not everybody is an
artist? YES.
Marilyn
Peter H.M. Brooks
Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010103045607.29534B-100000@vtn1...
> On 2 Jan 2001, RBrac53660 wrote:
>
> > I would certianly say that photography is art.
> > There are aesthetic choices to be made when useing the camera such
as film,
> > light and content. Just as the house painter slops on the paint so
does the
> > regular snap shot type of person. Just as the artist painter makes
choices
> > about color light etc so does the artist photographer. And believe
it or not a
> > photographer does need to have drawing skills.
> >
> >
> What's amazing here is that the question is still being asked
> especially after Mapplethorpe.
>
> Most of all the photographer has to have an "eye." He can see a
> composition which the average person would overlook.
>
tableaux, to be as artistic as a director or watercolourist. However,
when he takes the photograph, that is not art.
>
> What do I mean "average person" am I saying that not everybody is an
> artist? YES.
>
was art.
RBrac53660
like Stiechen, Robert Frank and many more
Marilyn Welch
>
>
>
>
> There would be no point in the discussion if everybody and everything
> was art.
In the above sentence, that should be "were art" for two reasons:
1."if" makes it a conditional verb
2."everybody and everything" subject needs a plural verb.
Happy Nit-Picking New Year Peter Brooks!
M.
RBrac53660
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> In the above sentence, that should be "were art" for two reasons:
> 1."if" makes it a conditional verb
> 2."everybody and everything" subject needs a plural verb.
>
> Happy Nit-Picking New Year Peter Brooks!
>
why not pick nits this coming year? Thanks for the suggestion.
Iian Neill
> Not only that, but a photographer can arrange a still life or a
> tableaux, to be as artistic as a director or watercolourist. However,
> when he takes the photograph, that is not art.
Iian Neill
> tableaux, to be as artistic as a director or watercolourist. However,
> when he takes the photograph, that is not art.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Iian Neill <ine...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:FRx56.47282$xW4.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Not only that, but a photographer can arrange a still life or a
> tableaux, to be as artistic as a director or watercolourist. However,
> when he takes the photograph, that is not art.We may wish to structure a heirarchy of the arts such as was accepted in the nineteenth century academies. If I remember correctly the order from top to bottom (most prestigious to least) was: history painting, mythological painting, religious painting, genre painting, portraits, landscapes, still lifes. One is not going to argue that a still life or a landscape by Cortot may be superior to a historical painting by Benjamin West, but the principle is not that different from the one accepted in classical music - where the symphony, opera, mass, cantata, etc., are accepted as being of more importance than the sonata, prelude, improptu, and so on. What is to prevent us from reserving a position in this heirarchy for photography - albeit a lower position - since it seems to have so many artistic characteristics?Surely the argument isn't that photography isn't artistic but that isn't the same kind or quality of art as painting or sculpture. This conclusion is reached because the premise that draughstmanship and design is important is widely accepted. Following from this, photography - which does not involve any kind of draughstmanship, i.e., the artist's seeking out of form on paper, canvas, clay - is considered to be less of an art than painting or sculpture. There is no insult to the photographer in this conclusion. He is carrying out a legitimate artistic activity, just one that requires a more restricted subset of skills than are used in painting or sculpture.
You could, I suppose, do that. But, why bother? After all, a photographer can use artistic skills after taking the photograph, in photoshop, say, to modify the image, or to use the image as the raw material for art.
The question isn't that photographers have no sense of design, chiaroscuro, etc., or that they are unable to use light effects or compose their images, but rather that these skills are subsumed by painting and sculpture, and that they lack other essential qualities that traditional painters and sculpters possess, qualities that are rightfully esteemed. No one is saying that the photographer isn't an artist, just that his photographs rank lower on the heirarchy than do his paintings or sculptures.
I am saying that a photographer is not an artist - unless he puts the art into creating the scene or modifying the raw image afterwards.
The proposed heirarchy then becomes: (1) painting, sculpture and architecture, (2) drawing, (3) photography. Again, we're not to forget that the experienced photographer may be able to produce a work of art far superior to his or someone else's paintings, drawings or sculptures. It's just that working with a more limited subset of skills than the painter or sculptor he is inevitably at a disadvantage. If the painter or sculptor he is compared to, though, possesses few native skills, then there is certainly nothing wrong with ranking him higher. What skills the photographer has may be valued less highly than the traditional artist's, but that's not to say that his traditional rival possess all the skills necessary to be a great or even competent artist. We are not compelled to the erroneous conclusion that a photographer's work is innately inferior to all art of all other mediums.
A photographer, who is only a photographer, can't produce art.
Peter H.M. Brooks
Iian Neill <ine...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:w3y56.47307$xW4.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Not only that, but a photographer can arrange a still life or a
> tableaux, to be as artistic as a director or watercolourist. However,
> when he takes the photograph, that is not art.There's something to be said for your sensitivity to the subtleties of language. The argument that the act of taking a photograph is not art is a beautiful logical curve; but it is slightly pedantic in the way that we would say that the act of pressing a paint-laden brush against a canvas isn't art, is pedantic. The point isn't that the act of opening the shutter, touching the canvas with a brush, or whatever, is artistic, but rather that the finished result itself is, or is not, artistic.
I disagree. The act of pressing a brush on canvas may, or may not be artistic, but the act of opening a shutter never is.
If we chose to look at the creation of art in this way - that is, in discrete moments or points - then there is no point along the line where art actually "happens". It is the sum total of all of these little acts, or, in other words, the work of art itself. If we are to cling too religiously to the "discrete units" theory then we are also faced with the problem of fitting in drawings, oil sketches, etc., into the artistic process. Are all of these sketches part of the same work of art? Where does a work of art begin or end? Is Ingres' Le Grande Odalisque only appreciable as a work of art because it is viewed in proximity to the prepatory drawings or colour sketches? Surely this is taking semantics too far.
If this were the case then an incomplete sculpture of painting or drawing couldn't be art - many are. So it isn't the case.
My argument against the inclusion of photography in the pantheon of fine arts rests not so much on the artistic - or inartistic - qualities of opening the shutter, but more on the subset of skills that has been employed in the creation of the photograph. Obviously, many of these skills correspond with or are even identical to those drawn upon by painters and sculptors. There are other fundamental skills though, such as draughstmanship, that are utterly outside the photographer's ken when he is in the process of creating a photograph. Due to their exclusion we can only conclude that the photographer must be ranked lower in the heirarchy of the arts. Again, as I theorized in my other letter, this needn't lead us to condemn all photographs as being worth less than even the most modest or incompetent painting. For the photographer, though he is working within a more limited subset of skills, may in fact be in possession of more salient skills than his rival painter or sculptor.
I certainly wouldn't say that a photographer is 'worth less', he just isn't an artist, that is all.
Laurie S.
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>Marilyn Welch <wq...@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
>news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.1010103045607.29534B-100000@vtn1...
>> On 2 Jan 2001, RBrac53660 wrote:
>>
>> > I would certianly say that photography is art.
>> > There are aesthetic choices to be made when useing the camera such
>as film,
>> > light and content. Just as the house painter slops on the paint so
>does the
>> > regular snap shot type of person. Just as the artist painter makes
>choices
>> > about color light etc so does the artist photographer. And believe
>it or not a
>> > photographer does need to have drawing skills.
>> >
>> >
>> What's amazing here is that the question is still being asked
>> especially after Mapplethorpe.
>>
>> Most of all the photographer has to have an "eye." He can see a
>> composition which the average person would overlook.
>>
>Not only that, but a photographer can arrange a still life or a
>tableaux, to be as artistic as a director or watercolourist. However,
>when he takes the photograph, that is not art.
There seems to be a dilemma here, even in my own head. I take
newspaper photos for a living, and I take photos on my own as well,
some of which I am pleased with, but I don't regard my actions as art.
I mean, my actions usually are pretty simple, since my work involves
action sports photography (which is challenging enough but mostly
involves keeping a close eye on the action and timing the shots well),
and my private photography usually simply involves wandering about and
getting nature shots that I like.
But if I took some of the pictures that I've taken and stuck them in
frames and put them on the wall, they could be considered art. I'm
looking around at my walls now, and on them I have a framed print, a
picture my teenage daughter painted, a photo she took of a sunset, and
a wreath made of some kind of plant material (I'll refrain from
listing the Singing Bird clock). I'd say all of those things are art.
And getting back to the question of whether the photographer creates
art or not, I have to compare the relatively simple nature of my
particular work with that of people who create photos that take my
breathe away. Are these people, at the moment they snap the photo,
doing something artistic with that simple gesture? Maybe not, but
they're still *producing* art. It may just be in capturing something
that already exists, in a way that not just anyone can do.
I think that painting has more to do with talent than technical
knowledge, and that photography has more to do with technical
knowledge than talent. But while I guess I would call most painting to
be art (even if it's bad), I don't really think of all photography as
art. Like some of the shots I've taken of grass, when I've had to get
out of the way of a football tackle and wasn't quite willing to stand
my ground for that last-second shot. ;)
Cheers,
Laurie
---
www.geocities.com/tobyneige/life.html
---
"If you can't believe in yourself,
believe in someone who believes in you."
lauri levanto
"Iian Neill" <ine...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message news:FRx56.47282$xW4.3...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Not only that, but a photographer can arrange a still life or a
>> tableaux, to be as artistic as a director or watercolourist. However,
>> when he takes the photograph, that is not art.>We may wish to structure a heirarchy of the arts such as was accepted in the nineteenth century academies.>If I remember correctly the order from top to bottom>(most prestigious to least) was: history painting, mythological painting, religious painting, genre painting, portraits, landscapes, still lifes. One is not going to argue that >a still life or a landscape by Cortot may be superior to a historical painting by Benjamin West, but the principle is not that different from the one accepted in classical >music - where the symphony, opera, mass, cantata, etc., are accepted as being of more importance than the sonata, prelude, improptu, and so on. What is to prevent >us from reserving a position in this heirarchy for photography - albeit a lower position - since it seems to have so many artistic characteristics?
To structure the hierarchy in a way that proved to be inadeqate two centuries ago seems futile to me.Your comparation to music is no more convictive. There you say that a big piece is of more importance than a small one.A kind of truth is lying there. In litterature novels are appreciated over short stories, and those over one line jokes.While poems - traditionally the most appreciated genre - small as they are ,do not fit into your rule.As you stated Iian, this kind of classification has very little to do with the artistic value.I appreciate a good aphorism well over Robbins' tomes.
>Surely the argument isn't that photography isn't artistic but that isn't the same kind or quality of art as painting or sculpture.
Likewise: A horse is full-blooded, but not the same kind or quality as a poodle or rotweiler.Comparing apples to oranges youo claim that oranges are better a priori.I do feel it strange that a performance of Beyus is classified in visual arts. I think it is more close to drama.Sure we would benefit of more clearly defined terms. As long as no arbitrary values are imposed.Pondering if something is art or non-art, is of little use because the definition of art is elusive.About a year ago Erik Mattila introduced the idea that some artifacts are *more art* than the others,(while nothing is completely without, as there has always been some decisions of form).In this sense a sculpture or painting is more art, than a coke bottle as there has been more artistic effortin making.
>This conclusion is reached because the premise that draughstmanship and design is important is widely accepted.>Following from this, photography - which does not involve any kind of draughstmanship, i.e., the artist's seeking out of form on paper, canvas, clay - is considered to be less of an art than painting or sculpture.
Your conclusion here lies on unstable ground.1. Draughtmanship is common in art, but not a necessary conditionThere are plenty of paintings -in the top category in your hierarchy- that show little if any draughtmanship.Likewise plenty of crafts like watchmaking or violin building with extreme draughtmanshipand little of art.2. Your claim that a photography doeas not involve any kind of draughtmanship?I do not consider the pass-photo automates as artists. Nor most of mysnapshots as art. If you ever has an opportunity to compare your photosto professional ones, you readily see a huge difference in draughtmanship.
>There is no insult to the photographer in this conclusion. He is carrying out a legitimate artistic activity, just one that requires a more restricted subset of skills than are >used in painting or sculpture.
As a sculptor I disagree. Both photographs and sculptures are about light and shadow. The photographer has more restricted subset of *means* to work with.Therefore more draughtmanship is involved in a good result.-lauri
bkosoff
and I have been on both sides of it depending on the quality and effort
behind the photograph in question. To me a photograph that merely
documents an existing scene and does not interpret or influence that scene
is not art, It's merely a recording .
In my opinion, if you record a scene with a digital camera and feed
that image into a digital printer, without having done any manipulations or
alterations, it's not art. The same goes for a film camera in which the
photographer does not make a print themselves using conventional print
making technologies, i.e by "hand".
If you create the scene , as in a still life, or a "set", then you are
making art as you have created something of your own design that did not
exist previously. In the case of landscape where the scene already
exists, what has the photographer brought to the image? When I shoot
landscape, there are many ways that I affect and influence the image.
First the choice of film. B&W film already adds interpretation to the
scene and a good photographer has done extensive film testing in order to
have the ability to predict how that film will alter the scene. Next, the
use of contrast control filters to further alter or manipulate the scene.
Then the choice of exposure, what do you choose to emphasize and
de-emplasize with your exposure settings? Next focus and depth of field,
do you choose to use selective focus, motion blur or have the entire scene
sharp? And then how do you process the film do you increase/decrease
contrast in development? Do you use a detail enhancing developer or
something that softens details? Do you increase the negative's grain?
Then sometimes I will have super high resolution drum scan of the
negative created, so that I can choose to remove any elements in the image
that don't work for me, say telephone lines, or animal tracks. I might
even bring out the clouds or some detail in the image, with the computer
that might be impossible to do in the darkroom. From these digital scans of
the negative, a new negative is produced that incorporates these changes.
I then take that negative and proceed to make a conventional, i.e.
silver print. But the interpretation doesn't end there, as in the darkroom
I still have the ability to alter contrast, exposure, detail, and
sharpness. As well as the ability to darken or lighten specific parts of
the photograph. I can add a sense of depth or atmosphere by subtly
diffusing the shadow exposure of the print. I can almost relight the image
in the print. The images that I produce look far different than they did in
real life. And if I gave my negatives to another printer, their print
could look totally different.
I think that the problem is that nowadays anyone can record an image,
and many do and call themselves photographers or artists eventhough they
have done nothing to make the image special or unique to themselves by
influencing or interpreting the image. In my opinion that has cheapened the
title of photographer or artist.
Brian
STommey
Consider the photo taken by a photojournalist of a young Vietnamese girl, naked, crying, screaming for help as she ran down a road fleeing from her burning village after a napalm attack. Assume, for the sake of argument, that this photojournalist returned with film in camera and handed it off to someone who then developed the negative and sent it to the magazine publisher where it was then published worldwide. The photojournalist never touched the film or the final product. Was this not art? Did it not evoke a powerful range of emotions in readers/viewers around the world? If the photojournalist had altered the lighting, focus, etc. would it have made a more powerful statement and then be considered art?
--
Steve T.
"If you're the only sane person in an insane world...
who's really crazy?"
"bkosoff" <bko...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:3A622F02...@bellatlantic.net...
bkosoff
I don't consider journalistic photography art. It may be powerful, it may evoke strong feelings in those who view the image, but to me it's not art because it is primarily a documentive form of photography. The example you give of the little girl fleeing for the naplam attack is a great photo in the journalistic sense. He is telling a story of what actually happened. It is a document. The photographer may have made choices regarding composition, but the very nature of the speed at which those types of images are made, make it near impossible to add much creativity to them. I'm sure the photographer didn't direct the poor girl to run this way or that, he didn't alter the lighting, he didn't create
the image out of his imagination and set it up. He saw a girl coming at him in terror, fleeing for her life, and he reacted. he documented a horrible event. That's why they sometimes call photojournalism documentary photography.
Also my understanding is that the word "art" is derived from the word "artificial". Documenting an existing scene, without any alterations or creative changes, is not artificial. If you create the scene or greatly alter an existing scene then you have made something artificial, hence "art".
If I take a copy photo of a great famous painting, and I copy it exactly, with no input on my part and no changes made compared to the original, have I created art or just documented a great painting?
Peter H.M. Brooks
>
> Also my understanding is that the word "art" is derived from the
word "artificial". Documenting an existing scene, without any
alterations or creative changes, is not artificial. If you create the
scene or greatly alter an existing scene then you have made something
artificial, hence "art".
> If I take a copy photo of a great famous painting, and I copy it
exactly, with no input on my part and no changes made compared to the
original, have I created art or just documented a great painting?
>
--
A car that will not go is not a car at all. - Birkett
Karsales (Harrow) Lts. v. Wallis 1956
STommey
The photojournalist could have passed on the human suffering and taken a shot of the successful air attack on an enemy village.
Lots of flash and boom...just what the editor back home is looking for. He chose not to focus on the war but on the consequences, the victims who themselves are mere witnesses to somebody else's vision of how the world should be. By choosing this photo and not that one, this subject and not the other, this location, this angle, is he not manipulating the brush on the canvas and shaping what we are to see?
I confess, the process is thin compared to your perception of what the artist must do to create art. There are fewer steps, tools, and mechanics used. But isn't the desired result from the audience virtually the same?
--
Steve T.
"If you're the only sane person in an insane world...
who's really crazy?"
"bkosoff" <bko...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:3A67ADB3...@bellatlantic.net...
bkosoff
STommey
Consider the landscape. Many artists I know use photos which they then transfer to their canvas as backgrounds, etc. or capture the entire photo as a painting. Where is your "thin air" concept in that? Consider the still life. Fruit, bowl and wine on a tabletop. Painters paint that. Often with meticulous renditions that are difficult to distinguish from a photograph or reality (except for the third dimension). Are they not:
<"merely expressing [their] feelings by capturing an existing scene that already expresses it, without really getting in there and <tailoring (altering) that scene to [their] choice or vision" and "not creating anything"?
To me, that is not art either because it asks for nothing from the audience. But it does meet your criteria. What difference is there in this type of work compared to a photo except the stroke of a brush or push of a button.
I submit that art is not defined by only mechanics, as you would describe, but by the result. The result defined by what the artist is trying to convey or what the audience experiences. Which leads to the old saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and my point. Yours may be one definition of art. Mine is another. And I further submit that the definition of art is continually being expanded to encompass new technologies which may not meet a strict adherence to your criteria.
--
Steve T.
"If you're the only sane person in an insane world...
who's really crazy?"
"bkosoff" <bko...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message news:3A6884D5...@bellatlantic.net...